I'm Just Sayin'

I am getting really sick and tired of defending our Constitution and Bill of Rights....it never ceases to amaze me...I am totally flabbergasted, when someone like Laura Reeve, uses the term "Constitution lover" in a derogatory manner. Here is what Ms Reeve, a columnist for the USC Daily Trojan wrote..."But inevitably, whenever a gun ban is suggested, hunting fanatics and Constitution lovers across the nation come to the fore, crying "Second Amendment! Second Amendment". They cling to their right to bear arms with unrelenting tenacity, because if that's what James Madison wrote in the Constitution a couple of centuries ago, then gosh darn it, that is the law we are going to follow."

Now my first reaction after reading this was shock and wonderment, my second was anger, then...sadness. In much the same way that some Christians pick and chose what parts of the Bible to believe or abide by, Laura Reeve has decided to pick and chose what parts of the Constitution fit her needs or purpose. Ms Reeve clings to her First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, but decrys those who cite the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. And this duality addresses the point I want to make. The Constitution and it's amendments are carefully written and with specific intent. They need no interpretation. Want to know who asks for interpretation of the Constitutions' meaning? It's those who purpose and aim contradict the Constitution. Some claim that, because these documents were written "a couple centuries ago" that their meaning or purpose has somehow changed or become archaic. I disagree.

As our world changes, we have to make decisions about how we are going to adapt to those changes....we abandon some laws and policies and adopt other laws and policies. It is the Constitution that allows us this flexibility. Logic does not allow for the point to be made that things should be the way they have been due to the fact that they have been that way for a long time. (I could have expressed that a little better, but  you know what I mean) The changes we make in order to adapt to changing factors and issues should not be Constitutional challenges however. Often we have to decide the Constitutionality of a particular issue....and that is my point. The Constitution is the yardstick, the issues and technicalities of those issues are what is being measured.

When I read Laura Reeves' rash statement, I assumed that she would have the support of many of her readers because of who her readers are...mostly they are USC students. I don't want to generalize here...but you get my drift. The comments to her article proved me wrong. Overwhelmingly she was chastised for what she had written. I sent an e-mail to the editor of the Daily Trojan, asking that Ms Reeve define the term "Constitution lover". No direct access to Ms Reeve was given on the Daily Trojans' website. I've not had a reply. When (if) I am favored with a reply, I'll post it. 

The link to her entire column is here.